Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

1464749515271

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    RichN95 wrote:
    If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'
    He could be considered from the B sample though. And I'd think some time to consider the A sample would be allowable.

    Yeah

    I stand corrected there

    Principle's the same but from the date of the B sample.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    RichN95 wrote:
    If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'
    He could be considered from the B sample though. And I'd think some time to consider the A sample would be allowable.

    Yeah

    I stand corrected there

    Principle's the same but from the date of the B sample.
    He could point to not riding the road race (although I think he never planned to)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • larkim
    larkim Posts: 2,485
    Definitely think self suspensions at the very least need to be activated within a short period of being informed of B test results. By then you've had some time to consider "fessing up" (assuming you've been notified of the A test results) if you think there was some "accidental" use going on. Or even if you're more cynical and know you've just been caught.

    The only time I wouldn't consider self suspending myself would be if I was 100% certain that I had not done anything wrong, either accidentally or on purpose.

    Official suspensions though should be carried out from the date of the test giving rise to the adverse finding, with financial repayment of any prize money etc won in the interim period. The only flaw I think in that position is that races which you technically shouldn't have been involved in may have been altered by your presence.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    larkim wrote:
    Definitely think self suspensions at the very least need to be activated within a short period of being informed of B test results. By then you've had some time to consider "fessing up" (assuming you've been notified of the A test results) if you think there was some "accidental" use going on. Or even if you're more cynical and know you've just been caught.

    The only time I wouldn't consider self suspending myself would be if I was 100% certain that I had not done anything wrong, either accidentally or on purpose.

    Official suspensions though should be carried out from the date of the test giving rise to the adverse finding, with financial repayment of any prize money etc won in the interim period. The only flaw I think in that position is that races which you technically shouldn't have been involved in may have been altered by your presence.


    Self suspension is a waste of time.

    Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

    Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. It encourages people to come to a swift conclusion.

    Otherwise a smart lawyer (on either side) could just delay proceedings until the most convenient time to take the ban is. Contador's original CAS hearing was scheduled for June 2011. It got delayed until November and didn't report until the next February.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    RichN95 wrote:

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

    Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.

    And if I have been competing then ban me all you want because I've already done whatever I did.

    Bans from the date of the hearing forwards together with losing palmares/cash prizes for events that you have competed in between date of sample failure and date of hearing.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    RichN95 wrote:

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

    Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.
    But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • I'm all for an element of unfairness when deciding on the appropriate sanctions for drugs bans. It seems apt.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    RichN95 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

    Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.
    But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.


    No - the reason they haven't been competing if because its winter/they haven't been selected for certain races/etc.

    Ban them from the day of the hearing.

    I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

    They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    And they are never inactive - if they aren't racing they are training, if they aren't serious training they are trundling/wind tunnel testing/sorting their doping programmes/etc.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • larkim
    larkim Posts: 2,485
    Bans of 12 months or more will always end up banning athletes for periods when they had no intention of competing. It's only when bans are for less than 12 months that the issue even arises, and then it seems to me to be prejudicial to opt to start the ban only at "competition" time if others could start a ban say in June and then expect to serve quite a few months of it in the off season.

    The only way around it would be to have bans commencing only from (say) 1st Jan so that punishments are equally spread.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • If you get caught cheating in a sport you typically forfeit the results from that event.

    Speeding down the motorway is a different analogy.

    Froome hasn't been proven to have broken the rules.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    If you get caught cheating in a sport you typically forfeit the results from that event.

    Speeding down the motorway is a different analogy.

    Froome hasn't been proven to have broken the rules.

    Yes.

    Yes. And no.

    Well ...... debatable. I'd say 70 pages of discussion and we should get there.

    But if the tribunal bans him it should be from the date of the hearing, not the offence.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.

  • Ban them from the day of the hearing.

    I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

    They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.

    That is an excellent argument for any rider under investigation spinning out the process for as long as possible.
    Heck, might as well rearrange their season's racing calendar with this in mind.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Do you think the misuse of salbultamol makes a mockery of fight against doping? I think the fact it is being seen as such a big deal is the mockery.

    That the fact this is dragging on over something pretty insignificant, that is to say the alleged potency of this so called PED rather than quantity found, is laughable.

    It's about whether the #1 GT rider in his generation misses some racing and loses a GT title.
    That's about it.
    Contador is #1 though
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

    Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.
    But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.


    No - the reason they haven't been competing if because its winter/they haven't been selected for certain races/etc.

    Ban them from the day of the hearing.

    I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

    They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.

    But that's a totally different set of laws, with different standards. Its not even apples and pears, it's more like Apples and Squid
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    Self suspension is a waste of time.

    Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

    Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

    The whole thing wasn't supposed to have been made public at all, so I'm not sure why he would have self-suspended before then anyway (mid-December?).

    It's not like EPO where there is no room for maneuver - B sample comes in and you are screwed, strict liability and no allowable dosage limit. He might yet be cleared, meaning had the proper process been followed the public would only have found out at all due to the self-suspension - which seems like shooting himself in the foot somewhat.

    Anyway to your comparison to crimes - time served often is taken into account, if you have been in custody for a long time before the hearing.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Self suspension is a waste of time.

    Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

    Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

    Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.
    Of
    The whole thing wasn't supposed to have been made public at all, so I'm not sure why he would have self-suspended before then anyway (mid-December?).

    It's not like EPO where there is no room for maneuver - B sample comes in and you are screwed, strict liability and no allowable dosage limit. He might yet be cleared, meaning had the proper process been followed the public would only have found out at all due to the self-suspension - which seems like shooting himself in the foot somewhat.

    Anyway to your comparison to crimes - time served often is taken into account, if you have been in custody for a long time before the hearing.

    There's been no time served so full ban time.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380

    It's about whether the #1 GT rider in his generation misses some racing and loses a GT title.

    Ah - now we reach the crux of the matter.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    edited January 2018
    Oh looky here, another source.
    So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
    Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

    https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • CuthbertC
    CuthbertC Posts: 172
    Strange change of tune given that Froome has already said the following:
    This is something I've always dealt with my whole career and I know what the limits are, I know what the rules are and I've always taken the utmost care to stay within those rules and those limits when treating my asthma.
    I know I haven't done anything wrong here. I haven't ever taken more than the permissible dose and I hope that by the end of this process I will be exonerated of any wrong doing.
  • redvision
    redvision Posts: 2,958
    Oh looky hear. Another source.
    So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
    Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

    https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257

    More here:
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... nient-ban/

    If true i would expect him to get a 9 month ban as i dont see why he would receive any less than Ulissi.
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    Nibalis palmares is starting to look better and better.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    redvision wrote:
    Oh looky hear. Another source.
    So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
    Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

    https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257

    More here:
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... nient-ban/

    If true i would expect him to get a 9 month ban as i dont see why he would receive any less than Ulissi.

    Yes, exactly.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,104
    Fair play for quashing that report but if it were to be true I wouldn't blame him if he can get a 6-9 month backdated for an accidental offence verdict.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Ruh roh
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Ignore the sycophantic fan boy article (its actually not even worth reading), the comments at the bottom are funny and show exactly how he is dividing opinion.

    http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... lingweekly
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • smithy21
    smithy21 Posts: 2,204
    When would we have been expecting Froome to start riding competitively with the Giro in mind, if it wasn’t for this issue?

    Algarve? Tirreno-Adriatic?
  • redvision
    redvision Posts: 2,958
    smithy21 wrote:
    When would we have been expecting Froome to start riding competitively with the Giro in mind, if it wasn’t for this issue?

    Algarve? Tirreno-Adriatic?

    The article on cyclingnews says mid Feb.
    La Gazzetta dello Sport has claimed that Froome, who has not been provisionally suspended, will race for the first time at the Ruta del Sol in Spain from February 14-19. g